Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV31234, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 19STCV31234 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Lift
the Stay on Court Proceedings
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Ana Nava Rodriguez
Resp. Party: Defendant Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay
is GRANTED. The Court sets a Trial
Setting Conference for March ___, 2023.
On September 4, 2019, Ana Nava Rodriguez brought her Complaint
against Ford Motor Company and Ford of Montebello on causes of action in the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, as well as a cause of action for fraud by
omission.
On October 3, 2019, Ford Motor Company filed its Answer
to the Complaint.
On October 3, 2019, Ford of Montebello, Inc. filed its
Answer to the Complaint.
On October 7, 2019, Ford of Montebello, Inc. filed
another Answer to the Complaint.
On October 7, 2019, Ford of Montebello, Inc. filed its
Cross-Complaint against Ford Motor Company on causes of action for indemnity,
contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.
On February 11, 2020, the Court: (1) granted in part Ford
Motor Company’s and Ford of Montebello, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration;
(2) compelled arbitration as to Ana Nava Rodriguez and Ford of Montebello but
did not compel arbitration as to Ana Nava Rodriguez and Ford Motor Company; and
(3) stayed the case in its entirety.
On April 26, 2021, by request of Ana Nava Rodriguez, the
Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Ford of Montebello from the
Complaint.
On February 2, 2023, Ana Nava Rodriguez filed her Motion
to Lift the stay on Court Proceedings.
On February 14, 2023, Ford Motor Company filed its
Opposition. Ford Motor Company concurrently filed Declaration of Hailey M.
Rogerson.
No reply or other response has been filed.
ANALYSIS:
I.
Legal Standard
“If a court of competent jurisdiction,
whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is
an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this
State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion
of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an
arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such
earlier time as the court specifies.
[¶]
“If the issue which is the controversy
subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue
only.”
(Code Civ. Proc., §
1281.4.)
II.
Discussion
Ana Nava Rodriguez moves the Court
to lift the stay on the proceedings in this case that was imposed by the
Court’s Order dated February 7, 2020. (Motion, p. 4:2–3.) Plaintiff argues that
this would be appropriate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4
because the only party the Court ordered arbitration against her has since been
dismissed. (Id. at p. 3:8–23.)
Ford Motor Company opposes the
Motion, arguing that the case is properly before the arbitrator and that this
Court’s authority is now limited. (Opposition, p. 2:11.)
The Court disagrees
with the argument made by Ford Motor Company. The Clerk’s Office dismissed
without prejudice Ford of Montebello from the Complaint nearly two years ago.
All of the causes of action in the Cross-Complaint (indemnity, contribution,
apportionment, and declaratory relief) were entirely tied to any liability Ford
of Montebello might have had to Ana Nava Rodriguez. As Ford of Montebello will
now have no such liability, the Cross-Complaint is moot, and the only remaining
causes of action in this case have been filed by Ana Nava Rodriguez against Ford
Motor Company. The Court has already
denied arbitration as to those causes of action. Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.4, now that the subject of arbitration is no longer at
issue, a stay is no longer appropriate.
The two status conference
reports, signed by counsel, do not require this Court to send the case to arbitration.
(See Exhs. A and C to Rogerson Declaration.) Further, it is not clear to this Court that
Exh. B to the Rogerson Declaration – a stipulation signed by counsel to hire
JAMS to conduct an arbitration – is binding on the clients. Lastly, if this were a binding contract between
counsel and JAMS, perhaps it could be enforced by JAMS in a Breach of Contract lawsuit
against the parties. However, Defendant has
not presented any authority to show that such a contract is binding on this Court.
The Court GRANTS the
Motion to Lift the Stay on Court Proceedings.
III.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Stay
is GRANTED.